AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Towards Greater Utilization

16th November 1962
Page 89
Page 90
Page 89, 16th November 1962 — Towards Greater Utilization
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

IN recent articles in this series factors which affect the cost of operating commercial vehicles have been considered. Concurrent with the Commercial Motor Show, the importance of selecting the right vehicle for the job on hand has been emphasized. together with other aspects which require consideration.

Having acquired the vehicle, the necessity of understanding the underlying principles of commercial vehicle costing has also been discussed. The keeping of such costs, in addition to providing a sound basis for formulating charges, also provides a useful yardstick for measuring current operational efficiency.

Thus far the several factors which have to be considered by the operator are largely within his province to control. Moreover, despite the wide range of commercial vehicles in general use, it is nevertheless possible to arrive at useful standard costs such as are published in " The Commercial Motor Tables of Operating Costs.

Transport operation, however, can be functionally divided into engineering and traffic aspects, using the term " engineering " in this context in its widest sense. Despite the importance of --the role played by engineering departments of transport organizations in providing and maintaining vehicles at the lowest possible cost per mile, the work performed by the corresponding traffic department is vital insomuch as its efforts will have a direct bearing on the amount of revenue received. Moreover, and particularly in respect of goods, its work is more complex as many of the factors—for example weight and flow of traffic—arc very largely outside its control and not always predictable. An intimate knowledge of the several industries served has to be acquired before mutual problems of customer and carrier can be usefully discussed and resolved.

FOR this reason any general comment on ways of achieving greater efficiency in the movement of traffic must be largely arbitrary, although the underlying theory could be adapted to a particular set of circumstances in individual cases.

For the purpose of this article it will be -assumed that the operator, in his quest for greater productivity has already considered, and adopted where necessary, the optimum size., of vehicle appropriate to his particular flow of traffic so as to provide some margin of capacity, whilst still keeping the cost of operation down to a minimum.

Alternative methods , of working then remain to be considered in an endeavour to achieve greater efficiency including the use of articulated vehicles, draw-bar trailers, and double shift working.

Articulation can be adopted by an operator, for one or more of several reasons. Until the comparatively recent increased availability of third axle conversions of quantity-produced four-wheel rigids, the articulated goods vehicle in the medium price range bridged a gap in price when a comparatively large load needed to be carried economically. In many instances, too, the advantage of a longer platform (as compared with the corresponding rigid vehicle)could be obtained at comparatively little extra cost. As a result, both heavy and bulky loads could be carried economically.

With the many changes in the products and pattern of trade and industry -which have oecurred in recent years, it is inevit

able that this trend will be accelerated should the U.K. join the Common Market. Consequently, selection of the right vehicle for the job will become increasingly difficult for the haulier, particularly as he would expect any new acquisition to his fleet to be capable of giving at least five years' useful life. But few if any hauliers and, indeed, not every ancillary user, can be sure of the type of traffic they will be carrying five years hence. In such circumstances articulation does at least provide a workable compromise to what might otherwise be an insoluble problem. The tractive unit could then be chosen on its engineering merits, whilst the original and any subsequent trailers could be selected to match new flows of traffic as these arise.

IN addition to these inherent advantages of providing an economic medium-capacity -vehicle with added flexibility to Match changes in traffic flows, there is the basic -benefit of the principle of articulation. Although this is put to good use by the larger operators, -there 'is still opportunity for greater exploitation Of articulation in appropriate circumstances by the use of extra semi-trailers. At. the recent meeting for the first time of representatives. of private enterprise and nationalized road transport on the sameplatform, it was stated that, despite the loss incurred by commercial vehicle operators due to traffic congestion on the roads, losses incurred in turn-round of vehicles at Iciacling and unloading points were far greater. In one area alone it was estimated that the annual loss exceeded LIOm.

The reason for this is not far .to seek. Whilst the most strenuous efforts to achieve and maintain a lower operating cost per mile may only, at best, represent a fractional improvement, a loading delay can reduce disastrously the efficiency of a working week. For example, a loading postponed from, say, an afternoon tO the following morning could mean that the final return load for.the week can no longer be collected. As a result there might be a 25 per cent reduction in the week's revenue for that vehicle, with only a marginal corresponding reduction in operating costs, if any at all.

Many operators are confronted with what they might reasonably consider an iniquitous situation in respect of loading facilities. With increasing adaptation. of mass production methods, customers are demanding higher standards of regularity and adherence to set delivery times. But often they themselves are, at the same time, providing lower standards of loading facilities, due to the ever-increasing pressure to give absolute-priority to production departments for both floor space and labour. But the contention that the customer is always right does not preclude the possibility of judicious education to improve both his—and the haulier's—efficiency in the distributive system.

Yet even with the best intention on both sides the economic interest of the trader or industrialist and the carrier—whether under A. B or C licence—often seems diametrically opposed where the provision of economic loading facilities are concerned. Moreover there are no grounds to expect that the continuing trend to reduce stocks, to a minimum will be reversed or even halted. As a result in many cases the only solution available to the carrier to improve productivity is to provide his own " buffer " to ensure continuity—and therefore efficiency—in.the flow Of traffic. Full Utilization of articulation

gives the opportunity to provide such a "buffer" by the use of extra semi-trailers.

As an example of the improved efficiency which can be achieved in appropriate circumstances by the use of additional semi-trailers, likely savings are now given. The selected vehicle is a 10-ton artic, fitted with oil engine, and operating alternatively with one, two or three semi-trailers.

With an unladen weight of 4 tons 12 cwt., the annual licence duty is £78. The equivalent standing cost per week is 12s. 10d. based on a 50-week year to allow for two weeks per annum when the vehicle may be off the road for major overhaul or driver's holidays. A driver's wages for a , basic week is calculated to cost the employer £10 8s. 11(1.. inclusive of insurance contributions and an appropriate adjustment for holidays with pay.

RENT and rates incurred in garaging this articulated vehicle are assessed at 16s. 2d. a week. The annual premium for comprehensive vehicle insurance cover amounts to £168 or £3 7s.• 2d a week. With an initial outlay of £2,200 for the combined tractive unit and trailer, interest charged at a nominal rate of five per cent would add 1109 17s. a year or £2 3s. lid. a• week. (Incidentally this item alone emphasizes the absolute necessity for maximum ultization of a commercial vehicle if efficiency is to be maintained.) The total for these five items of standing costs -is thus £18 9s. per week, or 105.42d. per hour. •

Similarly there are five items of running costs, the largest of which is normally fuel. In this instance it will be assumed that fuel oil is purchased in bulk by the operator at 4s. lid. per gallon, and that he maintains a rate of consumption of 11 m.p.g. The resulting fuel cost is therefore 4-52d. a mile.

Lubricants are reckoned to cost 0.29d. and tyres 2.08d. per mile, this latter calculation being based on an average life per set of 30,000 miles. Vehicle maintenance is estimated to cost 2.60d. per mile and depreciation 2-43d. on a conservative estimate of a vehicle life of 150,000 miles. The total for these five items of running costs is then 11.92d. per mile.

Dealing now with the cost of operating additional semitrailers, it will be assumed that the extra initial outlay is £750 each. Whilst they are hauled by only one tractive unit, the combined mileage relating to two or more trailers will be the same as for the single trailer when operating solo. Consequently there will be, theoretically, no additional operating costs when extra trailers are employed. But in practice a nominal addition in maintenance cost to the extent of 10s. per week per semitrailer will be allowed. It will also be assumed That a reasonable average weekly mileage for this class of vehicle will be 800, so that the extra 10s. per week maintenance costs would add 0.15d. per mile to the total running cost of 11.92d. per mile with only one trailer. Therefore the total running cost per mile would be 12.07d. with two trailers and 12.22d. with three trailers.

CORRESPONDINGLY the only addition to standing costs would be in respect of interest charges on the initial outlay of £750 per trailer, which at five per cent amounts to £37 10s. a year or 15s. per week. With a 42-hour week applying, this would be equivalent to 4-29d. per hour, so giving a total standing cost per .hour of 109.71d. with two trailers and 114-00d. with three trailers, as compared with 105-42d. with only one trailer.

These results will now be applied to a typical day's work which such a vehicle might undertake. It will first be assumed that a return journey of 60 miles is undertaken for which the running time alone is three hours whilst a further two hours is allowed first for loading and again for unloading. Incidentally, although commonly referred to as loading and unloading times, such periods often include time spent in locating the actual delivery point as well as queueing, which, in aggregate may well exceed-and often does-the actual loading or unloading time.

This journey of 60 miles therefore involves a total of seven hours. Applying the costs just estimated when using only one trailer, seven hours at 105.42d. per hour would total is. 6d. whilst 60 miles at 11.92$1. adds £2 19s. 7d. This gives a total of £6 Is. Id. and assuming that a full load of 10 tons was moved in one direction only, the cost per ton would be 12s. Id.

When extra trailers are brought into use it will also be assumed that there are loading staffs to deal with them, whilst the tractive unit is employed elsewhere. Although when so stated this may seem a self-evident requirement, it is a point that should not be overlooked when a policy of maximum exploitation of articulation is embarked upon.

But even when such a loading staff is provided, some terminal time must be allowed for the exchange of trailers, documentation and possible queueing and this will be nominally assessed at 30 minutes.

WITH one extra trailer (two in all) the overall time for one return journey will then be five and a half hours, made up of three hours running time, two hours loading time by the driver himself and half an hour at _the delivery point. This reduction in the time for the return trip now permits a revision of the day's work so as to include two return trips in 11 hours with, of course, the daily mileage being increased to 120. As previously calculated, when operating two semi-trailers the cost

per hour is 109.71d., plus 12.07d. per mile. This gives a total of £11 Is. 3d. for the two return trips. But as 20 tons are now moved during the course of the day, the cost per ton is • Ils. Id. .• If, however, two extra•seini-trailers are employed (three in all) the terminal time at both ends will then be limited to 30 minutes in each case, giving a total of four hours for onereturn trip and an eight-hour working day, during which two return trips are completed. The appropriate costings would then be eight hours at 114.00d. per hour (£3 16s.) plus 120 miles at 12.22d. per mile (£6 2s. 2d.) giving a total of £9 18s. 2d. With 20 tons now moved this gives a cost per ton of 9s. 11d. as compared with 12s. Id. with one trailer or I ls. id. with two trailers.

Next week the economy to be obtained in appropriate circumstances by the use of a draw-bar trailer towed by a rigid six-wheeler will be examined, and the savings by double-shift working. S.B.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus